And so we come full circle ...
If they are going to strike it down because of its source (EO vs. act of Congress), then:
How can it possibly work to our advantage if the courts say, "This does not pass muster as an EO - but it might as an act of Congress ..."?
But if they are going to strike it down because of its substance, then:

But this just puts it under the best-case "pointless and unnecessary" branch of the "either-or" I presented. (And it could end up under the worst-case "counter-productively dangerous" scenario if the BATFE decides to change its mind.)
What is the point of issuing a regulatory EO that won't be enforced? How is an unenforced EO (or an enforced one, for that matter) supposed to preempt or beat down the Democrats' gun-grabbing efforts in any way? And if, as you say, the courts would give greater deference to an act of Congress, then why should the Democrats feel at all inhibited or stymied by Trump's supposedly toothless EO? Indeed, it seems that just the opposite should be the case. After all, sharks don't go away when there's blood in the water ...
In short: the Trumpslanation we have been offered for this makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.
The sensible explanation is that this is not a ploy and that Trump is simply a half-assed gun-grabber (as accords with the history of his remarks on the issue going back decades). No chess required.

You and dannno are trying to have it both ways ...
If the courts are going to beat down Trump's crappy gun-grabby laws, then why wouldn't they beat down the Democrats' crappier gun-grabbier laws? Or to state things the other way around, if the courts are at all likely to allow the Democrats' crappier gun-grabbier laws, then why wouldn't they be at least as likely (if not more) to allow Trump's crappy gun-grabby laws?
If they WOULD beat down the Democrats' crap, then why does Trump need to do anything? But if they would NOT beat down the Democrats' crap, then why should anyone expect them to beat down Trump's?
IOW: Either Trump's crap is pointless and unnecessary at best (at worst, it is counter-productively dangerous if it does manage to pass judicial muster), or it is not a ploy ...

It's Quantum Dark Energy Wormhole Chess.
Anyone who doesn't see that this is just a tricksy feint designed to stick it to the Swamp and put the G in MAGA is a stooge or a shill.
(And anyway, Trump isn't perfect and Hillary would have been worse, so stop being such an ingrate. You should be thankful ...)

Of course a search phrase you use often is more likely to appear. So what? That's not the issue.
The question is: what if you have never searched for "Hillary Clinton "?
I haven't - but I just tested it, and when I type in "Hillary Clinton em", the only completions I am offered are "emoji" and "employment" (in that order).
How does that make any sense?

Why, yes. Yes, I have.
In fact, I've done a good deal of thinking about this very subject. I'll try to cram a few of those thoughts into a nutshell ...
That's what happens when you foolishly create an entire branch of government the sole purpose of which is to "legislate" - i.e., to continuously conjure up new rules from out of nowhere.
A great deal has been said among libertarians about fiat money - but fiat money pales into utter insignificance compared to fiat law.

hey....you know the whole Christmas Manger story is a little stale. Time for some rebranding
We could have the Virgin Marty giving birth in the manger to the little girl savior. Now that would be a real miracle.
Mother Marty and Baby Jessie?

Pension shenanigans ... profiting from drug trafficking ... running gambling dens ...
(And using violence against anyone else who does the same things without giving you a piece of the action ...)
Someone remind me - what's the difference between a politician and a Mafioso supposed to be, again? :confused:

In the long run, yes, it is.
But as one of the more notable (and unfortunately influential) advocates of spendthriftiness said, "In the long run we are all dead."
The key word here is "eventually" - a point toward which the spendthrifts and their enablers will always try to kick the can. That the can must eventually stop is a thing with which they are concerned no more than the gamblers who bet on Zeno's tortoise are concerned with Achilles ...

I have the lines kind, and they're fine for me. SOmeone I know just got the type without the lines and hates them.
They do take some getting used to, but I'm blind as a bat without my glasses so I just put them on and dealt with it for a few days.

Indeed. That, too.
I was originally going to phrase it that way - but then I decided to just distill it down to the quintessential stupidity inherent in the idea of giving more money to people who "are not good with money", regardless of where the money comes from.
(But it now occurs to me that it might not be such a stupid idea after all - at least, not if your true objective is to transfer money from the people who are "good with money" to the spendthrifty "stimulators" of consumption ...)

48 Visitor Messages

This is over a week late, but I wanted to reply to your neg rep comment. I actually was here in 2007, under a different screenname/account, (wildflower) but that's besides the point. I simply have a different opinion on your actions regarding the whole Gunny thing. But I don't feel like arguing about it any further, so that's all.